supporting ideas demonstrate individual aspects H u m a n i t i e s

Excellent

Correctly formatted with MLA throughout (e.g. heading, font, indentation, italization) and includes in text citations where appropriate.

Good

Minor issues present in MLA formatting

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with formatting

Substandard

Haphazardly formatted without a consistent adherence to MLA

Poor

Format is incorrect or missing

Excellent

Paragraph succinctly and elegantly primes the audience about chosen topic (explains director and his or her cinematic style with a minor amount of biographical information).

Good

Paragraph primes the audience about chosen topic (explains director and his or her cinematic style with a minor amount of biographical information). There can be minor issues present.

Needs Improvement

Paragraph primes the audience about chosen topic (explains director and his or her cinematic style) Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues in prose, style, or synthesis of information.

Substandard

Paragraph lacks priming the audience about student’s chosen topic (director and his or her cinematic style with a minor amount of biographical information). It is not sufficient for an intro paragraph.

Poor

Introduction paragraph has severe issues and does not adequately prepare the reader for the rest of the paper.

Excellent

Thesis is underlined and one to two sentences. An excellent thesis is a concise statement that effectively argues the paradigms of the student’s chosen director’s cinematic style.

Good

Thesis is one to two sentences. A good thesis is a statement that effectively argues the paradigms of the student’s chosen director’s cinematic style but may be lacking in one area.

Needs Improvement

Thesis is one to two sentences. The “needs improvement” thesis is a statement that argues the paradigms of the student’s chosen director’s cinematic style but may be lacking in more than one area.

Substandard

Attempted thesis statement arguing the paradigms of the student’s chosen director’s cinematic style but may be lacking in several areas

Poor

No effective attempt at a thesis statement arguing the paradigms of the student’s chosen director’s cinematic style. Extremely lacking or missing.

Excellent

-The flow of argument is be logical, analytical, and builds upon itself. Every new paragraph that supports thesis statement, includes a topic sentence. The topic sentences serves as a mini theses. Transition sentences guide readers from one main point to the next. Supporting ideas demonstrate individual aspects of a director’s signature style.

Good

There can be minor issues present in the following: The flow of argument is be logical, analytical, and builds upon itself. Every new paragraph that supports thesis statement, includes a topic sentence. The topic sentences serves as a mini theses. Transition sentences guide readers from one main point to the next. Supporting ideas demonstrate individual aspects of a director’s signature style.

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues in prose, style, or synthesis of information. The flow of argument is not always logical, analytical, or builds upon itself. Every new paragraph may not support the thesis statement or includes a topic sentence. Transition sentences and supporting ideas may be lacking.

Substandard

Substandard level of prose, style, or synthesis of information. Argument is either not logical, analytical, and/or does not build upon itself. Every new paragraph may not support the thesis statement, or may not include a topic sentence. The topic sentences may be poorly formatted and transition sentences are lacking.

Poor

Not collegiate level.

Excellent

-Inclusion of evidence throughout (with in text citations used where appropriate). Including: 1. Observations in the director’s films 2. Researched scholarly material

Good

There can be minor issues present but generally well thought out. The paper includes in text citations used where appropriate. It also demonstrates both: 1. Observations in the director’s films and 2. Researched scholarly material

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues present. The paper may includes in text citations but they might not be used correctly. It also may have some issues with 1. Observations in the director’s films and/or 2. Researched scholarly material

Substandard

Body paragraphs are lacking and not well thought out. The paper might not include in text citations and might not demonstrates both: 1. Observations in the director’s films and 2. Researched scholarly material

Poor

Severe issues and does not adequately address assignment objectives.

Excellent

Makes significant observations/arguments about the directorial style. Incorporates the observations/research through thoughtful analysis and proves high level of critical thinking and scholarly inquiry.

Good

Makes mostly significant observations/arguments about the directorial style. Incorporates the observations/research through analysis and demonstrates critical thinking and scholarly inquiry throughout.

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues in critical thinking and/or synthesis of information. Makes superficial observations/arguments about the directorial style but attempts made at deep scholarly inquiry even if it ultimately comes up short.

Substandard

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues in critical thinking and/or synthesis of information. Makes superficial observations/arguments about the directorial style. Rambling or otherwise unsupported observations/research, lacking scholarly inquiry

Poor

Severe issues in critical thought. Not collegiate level.

Excellent

Writer integrates sources and build them up into a methodical analysis. A successful paper will seamlessly synthesize personal observations and research. It will be written with correct grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. The writing is not repetitive and demonstrates planning and care. It does not seem rushed. Word choice is deliberate and well thought out.

Good

Writer integrates sources and build them up into a methodical analysis. A successful paper will seamlessly synthesize personal observations and research. It will be written with correct grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. The writing is not repetitive and demonstrates planning and care. It does not seem rushed. There can be minor issues present.

Needs Improvement

Writer integrates sources with some issues. Attempts to synthesize personal observations and research. Some issues in grammar syntax, spelling, etc.

Substandard

An unsuccessful paper will result in a rambling jumble of quotations or unsubstantiated, scattered claims. The writing will appear rushed and there will be errors in grammar, spelling, syntax, etc.

Poor

Severe issues. Not collegiate level.

Excellent

Paragraph succinctly and elegantly recapitulates the paper (the director and his/her cinematic signature style). It can also pose a question or offer thoughts about possibilities for further research regarding this topic.

Good

There can be minor issues present. Paragraph succinctly recapitulates the paper (the director and his/her cinematic signature style). It can also pose a question or offer thoughts about possibilities for further research regarding this topic.

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues in prose, style, or synthesis of information. Attempts to recapitulates the paper (the director and his/her cinematic signature style) but comes up lacking in some areas.

Substandard

Paragraph lacks recapitulation of the paper (the director and his/her cinematic signature style). It is not sufficient for a concluding paragraph.

Poor

Concluding paragraph has severe issues and does not adequately end the paper.

Excellent

Paper shows thoughtful level of investigation. It demonstrates critical thinking, information synthesis, and thoughtful planning. Research paper shows analysis via films, scholarly sources about director (and/or movie making techniques in general), and seamlessly combines the information with student’s own ideas.

Good

Paragraph primes the audience about chosen topic (explains director and his or her cinematic style with a minor amount of biographical information). There can be minor issues present.

Needs Improvement

Paragraph primes the audience about chosen topic (explains director and his or her cinematic style) Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues in prose, style, or synthesis of information.

Substandard

Paragraph lacks priming the audience about student’s chosen topic (director and his or her cinematic style with a minor amount of biographical information). It is not sufficient for an intro paragraph.

Poor

Paper has severe issues. Not collegiate level.

Included

Not included

Excellent

Correctly formatted with MLA throughout (indentation, italics, capitalization, punctuation, etc). Authors names in alphabetical order. Director’s films are also cited. Additional research, such as the textbook or other scholarly material can be included (but does not need to be annotated).

Good

Minor issues present in MLA formatting. Director’s films are also cited. Additional research can be included (but does not need to be annotated).

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with page. Director’s films are also cited. Additional research, such as the textbook or other scholarly material can be included (but does not need to be annotated).

Substandard

Haphazardly formatted without a consistent adherence to MLA. Director’s films are NOT cited.

Poor

Format is incorrect or missing. Director’s films are NOT cited. Mostly not scholarly material. Low effort displayed.

Excellent

Correctly formatted with MLA throughout (indentations, italics, capitalizations, punctuations, etc. and in correct alphabetical order by author’s last name). Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Good

Minor issues present in MLA formatting. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with formatting. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Substandard

Haphazardly formatted without a consistent adherence to MLA. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

No credit

Format is incorrect or missing and/or Bibliographic citation is NOT from a SCHOLARLY source. Or source is marginally related or completely irrelevant to topic.

Excellent

Annotation begins with a topic sentence. Then 2-3 sentences providing an overview of the main points of the source. Then, 2-3 sentences that assesses the quality of the source in terms of authority, accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. Finally, concludes with 1-2 sentences that reflect on the relevance and usefulness. -Word count (minimum of 150).

Good

Minor issues present in the following: Annotation begins with a topic sentence. Then 2-3 sentences providing an overview of the main points of the source. Then, 2-3 sentences that assesses the quality of the source in terms of authority, accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. Finally, concludes with 1-2 sentences that reflect on the relevance and usefulness. -Word count (minimum of 150).

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with annotation description requirements. 150 word minimum.

Substandard

No consistent adherence to the annotation guidelines and/or not 150 words minimum.

Poor

not collegiate level

No credit

Missing

Excellent

Correctly formatted with MLA throughout (indentations, italics, capitalizations, punctuations, etc. and in correct alphabetical order by author’s last name). Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Good

Minor issues present in MLA formatting. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with formatting. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Substandard

Haphazardly formatted without a consistent adherence to MLA. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

No credit

Format is incorrect or missing and/or Bibliographic citation is NOT from a SCHOLARLY source. Or source is marginally related or completely irrelevant to topic.

Excellent

Annotation begins with a topic sentence. Then 2-3 sentences providing an overview of the main points of the source. Then, 2-3 sentences that assesses the quality of the source in terms of authority, accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. Finally, concludes with 1-2 sentences that reflect on the relevance and usefulness. -Word count (minimum of 150).

Good

Minor issues present in the following: Annotation begins with a topic sentence. Then 2-3 sentences providing an overview of the main points of the source. Then, 2-3 sentences that assesses the quality of the source in terms of authority, accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. Finally, concludes with 1-2 sentences that reflect on the relevance and usefulness. -Word count (minimum of 150).

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with annotation description requirements. 150 word minimum.

Substandard

No consistent adherence to the annotation guidelines and/or not 150 words minimum.

Poor

Not collegiate level

No credit

Missing

Excellent

Correctly formatted with MLA throughout (indentations, italics, capitalizations, punctuations, etc. and in correct alphabetical order by author’s last name). Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Good

Minor issues present in MLA formatting. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with formatting. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

Substandard

Haphazardly formatted without a consistent adherence to MLA. Bibliographic citation is from a SCHOLARLY source that is useful and relevant.

No credit

Format is incorrect or missing and/or Bibliographic citation is NOT from a SCHOLARLY source. Or source is marginally related or completely irrelevant to topic.

Excellent

Annotation begins with a topic sentence. Then 2-3 sentences providing an overview of the main points of the source. Then, 2-3 sentences that assesses the quality of the source in terms of authority, accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. Finally, concludes with 1-2 sentences that reflect on the relevance and usefulness. Word count included (minimum of 150).

Good

Minor issues present in the following: Annotation begins with a topic sentence. Then 2-3 sentences providing an overview of the main points of the source. Then, 2-3 sentences that assesses the quality of the source in terms of authority, accuracy, objectivity, and coverage. Finally, concludes with 1-2 sentences that reflect on the relevance and usefulness. -Word count (minimum of 150).

Needs Improvement

Noticeable and/or reoccurring issues with annotation description requirements. 150 word minimum.

Substandard

No consistent adherence to the annotation guidelines and/or not 150 words minimum.

Poor

Not collegiate level

No credit

Missing